Modern and Theoretical Physics

If we have a cylindrical tank of area A which has a small outlet of area a at the bottom of the surface . And the container starts filling with a constant rate k m^3/sec . Now the max. level of water will be h = k^2/(2a^2g) as by using bernoulli's equation . But how will find the time after which level of water become h .

If we have liquid filled in a L shaped tube of length x and height h . Then what should be the acceleration so that liquid starts falling out . According to me if we start accelerating it with any value , it will start falling but I have a doubt in it

In the brane hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok where two collided to create the Big Bang is there a force of attraction such as gravity operating between them or was the collision entirely random? Why are collisions between them supposedly rare? What are they actually made of - matter / energy / strings? So if the Universe does actually reside up on one or two of them would it not be evidence of their existence? Could this be determined and if not why not? What would have existed between these two branes before they collided with each other - space / time / spacetime? Were these two branes part of another Universe before they collided or did they exist out side o…

It is my understanding that any reaction that generates energy, both chemical and nuclear reactions result in the loss of some mass. That exactly the same E=MC2 ratio of energy to loss of mass occurs in both types of reactions. I know every atom along with their electrons is accounted for in all chemical reactions. So in an exothermic reaction how is this loss of mass accounted for be they chemical or nuclear. Also when endothermic reactions occur, do they result in a gain in mass ? Do the subatomic particles get less massive in some way when exothermic reactions take place ? And do they get more massive when endothermic reactions take place. I have often wondered about t…

Maybe I am over simplifying, but the concept of density seems simple enough. Take an specific volume of space, add 1 thing to it, and the density for that volume changes. It seems to me that with this concept under the right conditions we could conceivably have a volume of space, of anything, that presents the density of a brick, ( picked arbitrarily ). If my thinking is correct even mass less particles without regard to the probability of the event occuring, should under the right conditions be capable of presenting a volume density comparable to, but not limited to that of a brick? Is this correct?

Can anybody explain how magnet fields work? Why do opposites attact? and likes repel?

It is my understanding that molecular structure is made, at least in large part, of atoms sharing electrons. The electron is a quantum particle. Could one say that they are quantumly entagled?

I have a patent that involves creating electricity from explosives and gravity. I was just wondering if anyone has heard of any other ideas to create electricity from explosives. There are three basic concepts. The first basic concept is to blast a cannonball up into the air catch it where gravity pauses it then use the weight of the cannonball to pull down on an elevator type generator until the ball is back to where you shot it from at which point you can re load the cannon and start the process all over again. So you re using explosives as the fuel in the system. The second method is instead of using a cannonball as the weight you can fill the cannon with water and b…

I wonder if anyone can help me? I'm looking for a couple of articles on particle physics from Scientific American magazine in the 1980s, but my don't have access to back issues through my university. Would anyone here be able to send me the PDFs of these? Many thanks David

I came across this: "Higher Dimensional Beings: Imagine if there was a 2D person. If you stare at them a certain way, they cant see you. All you have to do is look from a top view and they wont know you are there, and they would never know. Living their life as 2D, they would never be able to comprehend how something could be looking down on them. Now imagine a 4D person. They could be looking at you from a 4 dimensional angle, an angle that you will never understand. They could be right beside you, but you wouldnt know, and you would never know. Just as we could interact with the 2D person, the 4D person could interact with us. But as long as they dont want us to,…

I'm pretty sure I'm going way more indepth into this topic than I need to (I'm a pre med, neurosci major) but the way I've always understood concepts that troubled me was going to the quantum level. I'm trying to do the same with this. I read a previous thread on these forums on the matter, as well as a few other papers, and basically what I'm going after is conformation that I'm thinking about this correctly. So: We don't yet have a thorough understanding of what exactly magnetism is. The best way to explain it seems to be the idea of virtual photons being emitted from electrons caught within a magnet's range of influence, or field. The field is infinite, but it…

Please go to url deleted Moderators, please let me know what you think.

Hello everybody, I am, like I think the most part of you, a passionate of the misteries of nature. Thinking over and over I found an explanation apparently coherent with all actual unsolved problems. I put the document on amaon kindle but can be downloaded from my server. (http://aruba.aruba.ilbarone.net/all) I tried to contact magazines and university, but they seems to be too busy. The theory is a revolution but has the same approach of einstein, a geometric one. I am looking for some that can realize the tests described in the abstract. I ask help. Many thanks to everyone, sorry for my english. Alessandro Barone

If something is moving at a constant velocity say 10 kilometers per second, and is said to have a specific mass. Then accelerates to 20 kilometers power second, there is a mass gain due to acceleration? And, or due to what accelerated it? If no other force acts on it will it continue accelerating? Or is continued acceleration limited by the initial force that caused it to accelerate? By accelerate in these questions I mean continue to gain velocity.

Dimension / units What is the difference? For instance is mass a dimension where kilograms are it's unit? Is energy a dimension where joules are it's unit?

Hello guys, you could be interesting on some strange coincidences that point to a new method to measure the mass of elementary fields in the nuclear range. If one does a histogram of all the beta decays stored in the worldwide nuclear database ENSDAT/NUDAT, doing bins per atomic mass, one finds that the histogram peaks strongly in two situations: 1) when energy differences between nuclei are greater than the binding of an alpha particle. 2) when the mass of the nuclei is equal or slightly greater than 81 GeV. And all we know that this mass is the one of the particle field responsible for beta decay! (if the inline image does not work, check the attachments, o…

How magic numbers,N/Z ratio and Even odd no. Of neuclons can stable a Isotopes?

Typical Hydrogen contains one proton in the nucleus and one electron in it's electron orbital level. In order to ionize Hydrogen, which means to break it into a separate proton and electron; a field of 13.6 electron volts is necessary. What would happen if Hydrogen is contained in a steel containment and the Hydrogen atoms are ionized? I propose that the electrons will fly out of the containment and the protons will bounce around the containment until they settle due, to being unipolar. However, if a section of the containment is made of copper, silver or gold, the protons will be released from the containment, but never settle due to their being linear channels in these …

We know that there are countless radioactive decays taking place at any one time on the Earth and elswhere, Have there ever been any studies to determine if they are 'beating'(decaying) in time together? Is there a common clock to all these decays?

Warp Drive as in the Alcubierre version suggests faster than light speeds are possible, would time dilation still be a factor in that type of FTL?

Mathematical models and physical reality do not always correspond with each other. The ones pertaining to general relativity and quantum mechanics are famously incompatible although in reality they happily co exist. Einstein himself said that his spacetime model was an approximation of physical reality not physical reality itself so should not be treated as if it was. Given how every physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself. The spacetime model suggests that the Universe is expanding because of dark energy. But is it more true to say that dark energy does not actually exist and too much attention…

I've tried, but got nowhere. A kilogram of Uranium (U 235) has a half life of 700MY and decays to half its weight in that time. How is that? Let's bring it down to 4 atoms instead of 1 kg. After 700 MY do only 2 atoms degenerate? If so, what's keeping the other two at "full strength?" I understand that radioactive output may have something to do with it, but how? What am I missing with the entire "half-life" concept? Sorry, this is a rookie question, but I've got to start somewhere. Thanks. EW

If a wave originating in deep space in the vacuum was of a frequency of approximately 169GHz, and it travelled unhindered by the galaxies etc, could the distance this wave travelled alone cause this waves' frequency to drop to 162GHz or would it continue propagating the Universe at 169GHz indefinately? Thanks in advance for any replies.

Hello, my name is Allen. I am working on a theoretical framework for the Alcubierre Drive. I am working in subjects like the warp metric, and the theoretical mechanics of objects with negative mass. I would like to know if anyone would wish to become a collaborator. Anyone with a substantial knowledge of physics is welcome. You can pm me if you wish.

Out in deep open space would the ambient/background energy be lower than here on earth? If a simple bar magnets' fields spacings/field of reach were 'x' distance here on earth, would the distance 'x' of these field spacings/fields of reach increase because of a lower ambient/background energy out in deep open space?